Recent, potentially transformative plans for implementing liquid natural gas into Hawaiʻi’s energy mix have triggered widespread discussion and debate over our collective future.

The focus on energy is critical. We need reliable, affordable and safe energy to power and sustain our lives and businesses and environment.

As the state with highest energy costs in the nation and the most remote location on the planet, Hawaiʻi faces tough constraints, choices and challenges which we need to address now and into the future.

A Special Commentary Project

Civil Beat is focusing on transparency, accountability and ethics in government and other institutions. Help us by sending ideas and anecdotes to sunshine@civilbeat.org.

Read More

The JERA proposal is big, bold and welcome as a trigger for consideration of not just the technologies and the costs of diversifying our fuel and energy sources and meeting our decarbonization targets, but the risks, hazards and unintended consequences of investing billions in this ambitious plan.

We need better data and analysis but also more attention to safety, security and threats to our people, economy and environment. The JERA proposal must be compared against other alternatives with detailed cost-benefit analysis with focus on our state’s exposure, asset base and needs.

We need more attention to the risks of transporting, storing, converting, burning and using LNG. In addition to the issues related to cryogenic (refrigeration) handling of LNG which is at -260 F (-162 C), more attention to power plant operations, location and siting needs to be disclosed and evaluated.

We do not have the equipment, personnel and capabilities to handle a large-scale LNG fire on land and especially off-shore if a floating storage regasification unit is implemented. More attention to the risks of fire, explosion and failure of the offshore equipment, lines and what would happen if massive quantities of LNG were to be released into the ocean.

When super cooled LNG is released into the relatively warm ocean, there would be a rapid phase transition where the volume would expand by 600 times producing a large explosion.

While LNG unlike oil, will not produce an oil slick, if ignited, a vapor cloud could create a pool fire on the surface of the ocean, further exacerbating the release of LNG into the ocean and atmosphere. A large vapor cloud is colder and heavier than the surrounding air, producing a dense heavy cloud which could be carried by winds and spread over populated areas.

To extinguish LNG fires, water is not used but dry powders (Purple K) or heavy foams are applied which require specialized equipment and trained personnel. It is different from standard firefighting requirements. The potential for fire to spread and also the asphyxiation hazard of a methane vapor cloud around both the LNG power plant and also floating structures or tankers delivering LNG need to be rigorously studied and evaluated.

Limiting Human Exposure

In addition to the workers and emergency responders, we must also focus on the exposure to our population. Detection and alert systems and evacuation plans often fail to protect vulnerable, at-risk populations with limited mobility especially at night.

The safety concerns with ammonia which has been mentioned as an alternative fuel are as problematic and worrisome. While it is even more toxic than LNG, there is more use and familiarity especially in agriculture and fertilizer production. Similar concerns regarding massive expansion of transport, storage, offloading and use in power plants need to be addressed.

Based on my years of experience investigating disasters and failure scenarios, common causes or pathways emerge.

Operator error and poor training is the most common cause of accidents. Another is poor maintenance of equipment with insufficient monitoring of technologies. Ignoring near misses also occurs, largely because of poor training and inadequate facilities management.

There is also the threat of intentional acts carried out by disgruntled employees or criminals and terrorists who are knowledgeable and capable of maximizing the harm to equipment and overriding safety systems.

With new technologies, such as with floating storage and regasification units, there is limited experience and the potential for design flaws and problems we don’t see today arising from the longer term use of equipment.

The ocean environment is harsh with salt water corrosion and exposure to waves and coastal hazards.

With climate change, sea level rise, increased intensity and frequency of storms coupled with the potential for earthquake, tsunami and other destructive forces, the challenges of risk management and hazard mitigation for LNG are significant, especially here in Hawaiʻi.

There are other hazards including the supply of LNG, the dependence on tankers and marine transport and the plethora of external risks affecting the supply and costs of continued reliance on fossil fuels.

There are also huge opportunity costs associated with investing in LNG as compared to more locally available solar, wind, geothermal and demand reduction strategies.

Naked ambition and get-rich-quick schemes can be masked as “bold visions.” More detailed, careful and data-driven attention to not just the choices but the real risks and threats to our people and communities is needed to prevent worst case scenarios.

Part of getting it right and doing good means slowing down, building consensus and protecting each other.